Spoony, you can't explain the fact that SA has NEVER won a quarter or semi or final in a world cup event without mentioning their psychological problems. NZ had the same record till they met SA in world cup last year.

Spoony, you can't explain the fact that SA has NEVER won a quarter or semi or final in a world cup event without mentioning their psychological problems. NZ had the same record till they met SA in world cup last year.

Off course I can. We were just not good enough on the day. That is cricket and that is sport. You win some you lose some. **** happens. May I remind that NZ won the ICC tournament as well? 1992 we were mugged by rain calculations.

Then I ask you when was there a semi final when was there a quarter a final? Before NZ we ran into Brain Lara in 96. Who can stop him when he is in the mood especially without your best strike bowler? In 2011 we were ranked 4th. Lost to the 5th ranked team. NZ have a knack of producing their best when you write them off. Just ask Australia and Pakistan. Go have a look how many times NZ have beaten us in WC. A lot of times. We lost 9 wickets for 80 odd runs. You say that do not happen in cricket? How about India 252 - 1 to 299 all out against SA and they lost the game. When Tendulkar got out they fell apart. Like I said **** happens.

Psychological problems? Are you a shrink or do you read a lot of opinions of ex cricketers who have no qualification in psychology? Give me 1 team 1 team who could chase down 434 after being smashed into the ground by Ponting in full flow. Our morale were battered as well as the bowlers. Hershelle Gibbs smashed the ball around at 9 a over. Then when you look the RR was still 9 a over. What about the recently concluded test series in England. Did we panic? No we won the game and test series. How about the test series in Australia needing to score over 400 to win that test series? We did it and won. Where is your psychological problems there?

South Africa, playing England, needed 22 off 13 balls when it rained. By the time it stopped, they needed 21 off one ball.

Take away 12 balls and only 1 run? If that ain't a mugging then I don't know what is.Lewis was going over 7 a over and further everyone but De Freitas and Lewis had their 10 overs. McMillan and Richardson was gong at a run a ball.

Twelve minutes of rain was all it took to wreck a classic contest and produce the sort of farce that so often crops up when cricket's regulations get themselves in a tangle. In theory, the organisers had come up with a clever ploy to cope with rain interruptions - the reduction in the target was to be proportionate to the lowest-scoring overs of the side batting first, a method that took into account the benefits of chasing, as opposed to setting, a target. That didn't work so well, however, when the chase had been all but completed, and South Africa were made to rue Meyrick Pringle's excellent figures of 9-2-36-2. At first the scoreboard showed a reduction to 22 off seven balls, and then moments later, it read 22 off one (which should in fact have read 21 off one). Brian McMillan patted Chris Lewis' last ball for a single, and set off for the pavilion looking as furious as England - deserved victors, if truth be told - were embarrassed.

Even though a reserve day had been set aside for the semis, the demands of the host broadcasters, Channel Nine, were such that the match had to be completed there and then. "South Africa's chances of reaching the final floundered on a rule which no-one had bothered to think through," wrote John Woodcock in The Cricketer. "For so important an event to be reduced at times to a lottery must have been a source of great embarrassment to the organisers, though to the best of my knowledge they came nowhere near to admitting it. It is difficult to avoid the impression that the Australian Cricket Board are obliged to defer to television, by which I mean to Mr Packer's Channel Nine and all their delirious ways."

"We knew they would need to bowl a part-time bowler for at least one over," McMillan says. "So at 27 off three overs, the game was on. Then it came to 23 off 13. We thought we were still on. We had a short boundary on one side at the SCG. Even then it was great. But at 22 off 1 we were stuffed.

"The irony of the whole saga was that a South African, Allan Lamb, went up to Graham Gooch and told him they must walk off. It was actually he who advised Gooch, otherwise Gooch was going to play on. Lamb advised Gooch, and he is a South African. When we walked off, to give them credit, Gooch and Ian Botham walked up saying, 'If we were to win, we don't want to win that way.' So I have got to give them credit. That meant a lot to me."

Off course I can. We were just not good enough on the day. That is cricket and that is sport. You win some you lose some. **** happens. May I remind that NZ won the ICC tournament as well? 1992 we were mugged by rain calculations.

Then I ask you when was there a semi final when was there a quarter a final? Before NZ we ran into Brain Lara in 96. Who can stop him when he is in the mood especially without your best strike bowler? In 2011 we were ranked 4th. Lost to the 5th ranked team. NZ have a knack of producing their best when you write them off. Just ask Australia and Pakistan. Go have a look how many times NZ have beaten us in WC. A lot of times. We lost 9 wickets for 80 odd runs. You say that do not happen in cricket? How about India 252 - 1 to 299 all out against SA and they lost the game. When Tendulkar got out they fell apart. Like I said **** happens.

Psychological problems? Are you a shrink or do you read a lot of opinions of ex cricketers who have no qualification in psychology? Give me 1 team 1 team who could chase down 434 after being smashed into the ground by Ponting in full flow. Our morale were battered as well as the bowlers. Hershelle Gibbs smashed the ball around at 9 a over. Then when you look the RR was still 9 a over. What about the recently concluded test series in England. Did we panic? No we won the game and test series. How about the test series in Australia needing to score over 400 to win that test series? We did it and won. Where is your psychological problems there?

Yes, you can explain it all away by saying that the opposition played better than SA. If we are all so misguided why are Garry Kirsten and AB deVilliers repeatedly using the 'C' word to describe their own failures in past? Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving the problem. Look, no one intends to take cheap shots at SA cricketers. Most of us actually support SA in neutral games, and want to see it winning one of the world tournaments. What's all the defensiveness for?

Erm no, they faced 45 overs because the SA team slowed it down because they were being tanked. Not sure how D/L would've played it out, but if my app is correct the SA target would've been 276 and the new target when it rained 258. In fact even without the boost England get from D/L for losing 5 overs through no fault of their own, D/L says 237 so they'd needed 6 off the last ball.

Pretty much common knowledge that SA had only themselves to blame for 1992, that karma bit them hard in the ass, and they deserved it for slowing down the over rate and allowing only 45 overs for England to face, very dodgy indeed. I doubt any south african will admit it, but then again they are known for denial. England deserved their good fortune.

Erm no, they faced 45 overs because the SA team slowed it down because they were being tanked. Not sure how D/L would've played it out, but if my app is correct the SA target would've been 276 and the new target when it rained 258. In fact even without the boost England get from D/L for losing 5 overs through no fault of their own, D/L says 237 so they'd needed 6 off the last ball.

Em you know it rained early in the SA inning as well? It rained three times that day a reserve day was set but the match completed before the scheduled time anyways. Blame channel 9. Also we had 4 fast bowlers, a medium fast pace and 2 medium pace bowlers so we did not cheat. We had no spinner and got punished 2 overs for it. If it did not rain we would have won the match 27 of 18 balls was easy within reach.

Originally Posted by robelinda

Pretty much common knowledge that SA had only themselves to blame for 1992, that karma bit them hard in the ass, and they deserved it for slowing down the over rate and allowing only 45 overs for England to face, very dodgy indeed. I doubt any south african will admit it, but then again they are known for denial. England deserved their good fortune.

Denial most come from the English blood flowing through our veins. Fact is if it did not rain we would have won. Then again the English did choke in the final.......

Dunno what that is suppose to mean. Anyone can upload a video and give it a heading. Does not make it fact or true just someones half arse opinion. Oh wait that half arse opinion is yours which mean as much to me as wet toilet paper. But here's a biscuit

LOL, yes England did choke in the final. Must admit, i wasnt concerned with the outcome of the SA v Eng match, i didnt really care who won, but at that time SA were a fine team to watch indeed, Donald was a freakin legend, I even enjoyed Cullinan's batting, he was mighty against pace bowling.

Off course I can. We were just not good enough on the day. That is cricket and that is sport. You win some you lose some. **** happens. May I remind that NZ won the ICC tournament as well? 1992 we were mugged by rain calculations.

Em you know it rained early in the SA inning as well? It rained three times that day a reserve day was set but the match completed before the scheduled time anyways. Blame channel 9. Also we had 4 fast bowlers, a medium fast pace and 2 medium pace bowlers so we did not cheat. We had no spinner and got punished 2 overs for it. If it did not rain we would have won the match 27 of 18 balls was easy within reach.

So what if it rained early in the SA innings, it didn't remove any overs. Slowing down so you rob a team of 5 overs, 10% of the innings is inexcusable cheating, can't use the excuse of "we had no spinners"

Would have won the match easy? That'll be why D/L would've had you losing it even if we ignore the 5 overs you robbed England of? Pull the other one.